Oh, the ‘Rages We’ll Grow!
by Ranty Em | Published March 11, 2021
Here we go again. Did you hear? Fox News programming lit up with popular hosts lamenting the latest victim of ‘cancel culture’ – Dr. Seuss. And while the pundits like Tucker Carlson decried liberals for banning books, it’s worth noting that FoxNews.com has the real story on its website. Here’s what happened: Dr. Seuss Enterprises – a private company – issued a statement that they decided to “cease publication and licensing of the following titles: And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer.”
After reviewing Dr. Seuss’s catalogue with educators and experts, the organization determined these titles included harmful stereotypes, and they don’t represent Dr. Seuss, his legacy, or the enterprise’s ongoing mission.
Not quite the book-banning, delinquent liberal mob Tucker Carlson and his fellow commentators would have us believe, right? A private entity making its own decisions about the products it produces is one of the key tenets of capitalism, no? Maybe he should have read his organization’s own reporting before his show, but let’s face it – punditry isn’t news and isn’t held to the same standard so why would he sacrifice ratings for standards he isn’t measured against?
The Punditry Problem Isn’t Partisan
Carlson isn’t the only pundit passing off his opinion as fact, and Fox News isn’t the only outlet to employ them. Left-leaning pundits exist and damage journalism as well. Politifact’s Punditfact found that popular MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow’s incorrect checks outnumber her accurate ones. Pundits aren’t journalists but are often billed as such, making it difficult for media consumers to distinguish between them.
The line between fact-based reporting and opinionated commentary has become dangerously blurred. Equating media personalities that seek to influence with reporters who aim to inform damages the credibility of journalism, and as a result, we have groups operating under different sets of conflicting information. This isn’t to say reputable journalism doesn’t have its own problems. News has always been vulnerable to bias and agendas which is why many resources have been created to help consumers better navigate the oversaturated market. I’ve included some useful ones here to get you started.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that news reporting is infallible. That position is as questionable as assuming it’s all fake news. With all its challenges, a free press is undeniably fundamental to democracy. But as consumers of the media product – and make no mistake, it is a product – we now have a consequential responsibility to critically examine what we’re accepting as fact. Many self-report that they can identify fact from opinion, but evidence proves otherwise. And the truth is it isn’t so easy.
One Fact, Two Facts, False Facts, True Facts
Sure, it’s obvious that ‘2+2=4’ is fact and ‘pizza tastes good’ is opinion (though I question those who disagree with the latter). It should go without saying that news coverage is more complex. Nothing happens in a vacuum so context and analysis are important, but even among experienced journalists, there’s a fine line between contextualizing and editorializing. That’s where this begins to get sticky. Let’s dig into why it’s so important to distinguish between reporting and punditry and how to do it.
Punditry is Pervasive
Opinionated personalities and hot takes sell. It’s also cheaper to produce than actual news. In a 24/7 for-profit news cycle, it isn’t cost-effective to send reporters, producers, and crew wherever news is happening. It’s easier to host semi- and sometimes pseudo-experts in-studio to talk about what’s happening – the more emotionally charged, the better. The degree to which these experts and panelists stick to the facts of a story is a key indicator as to whether they’re an analyst, a pundit, or a propagandist.
Pundits and propagandists aim to entertain or influence. When looking at their accuracy ratings, they are almost certainly more wrong than right. Sometimes it’s because they start with predictions and work backwards while other times, they want to persuade the audience about a certain issue and build the narrative accordingly.
Let’s take the Dr. Seuss story. On Last Week Tonight, John Oliver called Carlson and Fox’s coverage “lazy and depressingly effective.” (And if Oliver leans too far left for you, Cindy McCain also stated that Fox’s take on the Dr. Seuss story was ridiculous.) Carlson’s story not only blamed cancel culture for a private company’s independent decision, he also got the details wrong about what books would no longer be published. The books weren’t banned. It wasn’t fascism as Glenn Beck suggested. But I’d wager both Carlon’s and Beck’s programs performed far better than the fact-based story published on FoxNews.com.
Last Week Tonight likely outperformed the original published statements as well, but 1. It included the original statement and 2. John Oliver is a comedian on an entertainment network – not a political commentator on a news network. Because Oliver does cover current events, like with any opinionated commentary, his shouldn’t be conflated with journalism either. One major difference, however, is transparency. We have a responsibility to fact-check the media we’re consuming, and the media has a responsibility to make crystal clear distinctions between news reporting and opinion.
News vs. Analysis vs. Opinion
Differentiating between reporting, contextualization, and editorialized opinion is easier said than done. News organizations must do better at labeling and ideally, separating, fact-based reporting from opinion, but until we can rely on that consistently, here is a quick reference to think about each category:
News – Here’s what happened
Analysis – Here’s what happened and context around why it happened
Opinion – Here’s what the commentator thinks about what happened
Does this mean opinion pieces are bad? Not at all. Considering someone else’s opinion can be tremendously valuable. It is important to keep in mind that opinion pieces aren’t rigorously fact-checked or held to the same accuracy standards as fact-based news. It’s also important to remember that if the commentary exploits emotions like anger, fear, spite, or self-righteousness, it contributes to the outrage machine that hinders civil discourse.
The Why Behind the What
When I first heard about the left’s cancelation of Dr. Seuss, I was confused. And skeptical. Not because the left never cancels first and asks questions, never – but because Tucker Carlson is unapologetically unreliable. Even his lawyers call him a liar.
As the clickbait story spread, I went to the source. Why had this non-issue statement fueled so much outrage, particularly when it could be so easily debunked?
Two reasons came to mind:
There’s an audience that eats this up, whether it’s true or not.
Distraction.
In this case, both apply. Despite the inaccuracies in his commentary, Tucker Carlson hasn’t retracted any of his Dr. Seuss/liberal mob claims. The comments on his social posts indicate his audience fully supports his representation of what happened even though the evidence proves that’s not how it happened. This overt distortion of facts moves from opinionated punditry to propaganda.
When this bullsh*t story captured the attention of the Internet, here are a few of the trending topics that coincidentally dropped ‘below the fold:’
Governor Abbott opens Texas and removes the mask mandate
Georgia (among other states) introduce bills to roll back voter access
Texas’s power grid failure following the winter storms
Outraged by the supposed ban, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, after accusing democrats of outlawing Dr. Seuss and stripping states of their rights to limit voter access, read from Green Eggs & Ham in protest – even though it was not among the six titles Dr. Seuss Enterprises will no longer publish
Stop Feeding the Beast
Fear, zealotry, anger – these are easy to exploit. As long as conspiracy theories, sensationalism, and hearsay net the ratings, content outlets will continue to serve up as much as we’ll devour. That is, unless we change our consumption habits.
Think of it this way. You may not be able to eat clean every day, but if you get most of your nutrition from fast food restaurants, you’re probably doing your health a disservice. Some punditry is fine as long as it’s not positioned as news. However, avoid propaganda – even in small doses, it’s dangerous and addictive.
Additional Resources